"If you want to integrate Light Inf into the Mech attack, I think it may actually be prudent to give them M113's as there is no mech attack that will outrun it over broken terrain. Additionally the inclusion of the vehicles to any operations in the north would be an asset, especially for continued operations, with an airlift capability they could be brought in once suitable austere airstrips could be developed. Keeping to a simple platform would enable the Light Inf to qualify drivers as well as gunners on wpns which are much more user friendly such as the .50 cal and mk19 within turreted systems, without disrupting their current training tempo or without becoming to complex."

-Now that is an interesting bit of thinking out of the box. Would you recommend a 'Carrier Company' - a modern variant of the WW2 'carrier platoons' - that would centralize all of the tracks in the bn, and come with their own 2 - 3 man crews? They could be trained and used like a poor man's Recce Sqn for RAS, Conv Escort, Resup over marginal terrain, etc, then used to tpt the light coys when needed, or as platforms/carriers for heavy wpns when not dismounted. Especially in winter.

Comments?

Tom

Logged

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Well for starters TCBF it may be better to start an entire new thread on Northern OPs. But I will make a go.

First off the Army will be wheeled for some time to come we will just avoid the broken terrain or better yet teach our drivers how to drive in that terrain.But the use of the M113 especially if you use the upgraded one would make sense in Northen Ops due to conditions throughout the year.But now your opening a whole new discussion about Winter Ops.Would you develop a permanent base of battalion size and rotate the Infantry through that base to acclimatize them and teach them winter ops?Or would you leave them where they are now?The Army would have to start all over again in Winter Exercises, the ones we do now are pathetic. you would be talking 3-5 weeks on exercise in the North to properly learn fighting conditions.Who would you be defending against?Qualify the drivers would be good idea no matter what they do. As for trained gunners great idea, perhaps if we had used trained gunners who never dismounted when we used to have M113's we wouldn't have the same problems today with LAV III and dedicated crews.Those 2-3 man crews within your "Carrier Company" could better utilized as Infantry man.

First off the Army will be wheeled for some time to come we will just avoid the broken terrain or better yet teach our drivers how to drive in that terrain.

I'm sure this is being done already, had a couple of guys get 16 extras because they broke two G-Wagons driving over rough terrain in front of a general during a demo. Now in a real Army they would have identified the problem and fixed it, but in ours it is far more important to appear professional than to be professional.

But the use of the M113 especially if you use the upgraded one would make sense in Northen Ops due to conditions throughout the year.But now your opening a whole new discussion about Winter Ops.

Let's not get focused in on winter ops that was just one of the many examples, there is no reason why the same platform can't be used in other theaters as well in the specified roles of gun platform and troop carrier. Just because docterine doesn't exist does not mean that with a bit of improvisation and adaptation something can't be done.

As For dedicating bases and units and time, boy nothing like making something more complex than it has to be. When I said that with driver trg and gunner courses it would take like time out of the light inf bn trg, is because they run normal pcf cycles like the rest of the inf, and both those courses (with minor adjustments) are or were already established PCF courses. There is no reason to open a new base and as long as the employment is based on the deployment matrix of the light inf bn then they would rotate through the trg on once over a 3 year period. This employment and use of carriers would not however focus just on the M113 and how to employ it in a mech attach, but rather how to employ the capability within the light inf to enhance it's firepower and mobility on the battlefield once they have siezed ground. The carriers would be added to the list of vehicles which already compliment the light inf bn's such as the LOSV, BV206, providing much greater protection and heavy wpn platform.

Carrier Companies are a far fetched idea in a light inf bn, there is just not enough manpower or is ther enough utilization of the task to justify having that number of soldiers out of their primary roles. It is far better to have vehicles dedicated to specific role such as wpns platoons within the coy or transport as troop carriers than to try and implement these vehicles into a full mech coy.

But specifically operations with employ light forces always begin without mech support. So once suitable DZ and LZ are established and the inital wave of troops are securing the ground, light follow on forces could be air lifted into the area utilizing vehicles such as the BV206 and the M113 to shore up defences and enlarge the exploited area for further mech forces. Now once those Mech forces reach the breach and break out the only way for Light forces to keep up would be to mount up and follow along. Now obviously further light tasks aside. A special note as well this is only one idea of how to utilized light forces within a mech attack, the focus of light bn would and should allways remain focused on light tactics and is dependant on the current format of 6 mech bn and 3 light, but as we all know this is no longer going to be the case if the mech bn keep losing there LAVs, if anything this is getting closer to what an Army of our size should be. A lot of light inf and more support for ground operations.

Just wondering along TCBF's query about the Carrier Platoon. 14 M113/Bisons/Bv206s..... would only require 28 crew. They could be used for resupply or as a means of moving a company of troops in a QRF, right?

Light Forces are deployed rapidly to secure and hold ground for a follow on force. In their primary role they are not likely to go swanning around in the blue on their own. Putting a bit more capability in the Transport pool (trade trucks for APCs?) wouldn't that assist in their primary mission?

If they are to spend a lot of time in theater then is it likely that the entire battalion will be mounted for an assault or move at one time?

If the entire battalion is to be attached to a LAV or Track force maybe alternate arrangements could be made by having the Blackhats supply and Armoured Transport Sub-Unit (Coy/Squadron) to lift the rifles?

« Last Edit: August 24, 2005, 16:13:49 by Kirkhill »

Logged

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

"If the entire battalion is to be attached to a LAV or Track force maybe alternate arrangements could be made by having the Blackhats supply and Armoured Transport Sub-Unit (Coy/Squadron) to lift the rifles?"

- Well.....

IF - and it's a big if, because the RCAC is terrified of being reduced to crewing LAVs in Inf bns - that was to happen, who would crew them?

Tom

Logged

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Attach an armoured transport squadron(?) of NON-fighting vehicles to move the infantry under cover - Back to the notion of the defrocked Priests and Kangaroos; the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment and the 25th Cdn Armoured Delivery Regiment (The Elgin Regiment). One Squadron of Stryker/Bisons per Regiment. They can tell themselves the vehicles are just to bring up the rations and the Regimental Silver.

I know this makes for larger Blackhat regiments and I have been accused of wanting to create a Blackhat empire by some.

Not to be too facetious though, it isn't so much a case of establishing a Blackhat empire as recognizing the inherent difference between two organizations, one of whose ethos is to stand and hold and the other's whose ethos is to drive on. Occasionally over the hill and far away with the Infantry yelling "Please come back. All's forgiven."

I would sooner see 9 similar, smaller if necessary infantry battalions (identical organization - different skills), and 3 mobile Regiments in the Blackhats than the current case where everybody seems to want a bit of everybody else's turf for fear of being left out on any given operation.

I don't doubt there is enough work to go around.

Logged

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

US is now armouring the trucks in the motor pool and in the service corps.

Why not use Bisons/Strykers/M113s/BvS10s in the motor pool/service corps? Not the fully instrumented version, just the armoured box. Then you have more secure resupply AND expedient transport for moving light troops under fire.

On the deployability front and payload front there is not much to choose between a 2.5 tonne FMTV and a Bison.

Logged

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

If you want to relegate our Infantry to Self Loading Cargo - "Spam in a can", by all means give us the turrets. BUT... The Russians got the BMP in 67, the Germans the Marder in 71, etc, every other adult army in the world gave it's infantry turrets, and, well, I always thought OUR grunts were pretty much smarter than any other grunts on the planet.

So... the problem would be?

The use of ground and understanding of mnvr is first inculcated in dismounted and then low level mounted ops. If you develop a generation of leaders who miss that crucial step, expect an argument of who exactly is qual to command cbt tms and btl gps.

Just my opinion. There are others. On one of LCol Stogran's tours of the perimeter in 2002, we had this same discussion. He replied that the higher lvl of mnvr at cbt tm, btl gp, and bde gp was actually EASIER to grasp than crew commanding and troop leading. He had a good a point there.

So, what do the Yanks, Brits, French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians do? And why?

How about the Isrealis?

Tom

Logged

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

AS far as the M901 and the 11H goes the M113 has been replaced by the Bradley with an intergrate TOW launcher on the turret, since it is fired and controlled by the regular gunner, no need for the separate TOW Mos.

Attach an armoured transport squadron(Huh?) of NON-fighting vehicles to move the infantry under cover - Back to the notion of the defrocked Priests and Kangaroos; the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Regiment and the 25th Cdn Armoured Delivery Regiment (The Elgin Regiment)

Hmmm......

Although I sympathise with the idea that "adult Infantry can run turrets" and in my ideal world, we'd ALL have the appropriate AFV (including TANKS!) for the job, we ain't in an ideal world right now.

With this plan, you can effectively mechanise all the reserve light infantry units, without having to issue them all their own AFVs. Keep a battalion's worth of APCs at the major training areas, role the local units as APC regiments, and then plug the LIBs into them as required.

Gee, I saw the words Light Infantry and I thought I'd take a look, but I realize it is only a lot of mech talk. Sorry, I'll keep my comments out of this one but let me just say don't confuse the mechanized with the light. Same role, different ways to get it done.

I actually wrote a paper on this subject if anyone's interested. Well, it's very close to this subject anyway.

I wrote about the FEC and the Infantry and one of my conclusions was that the LAV training bill was preventing the infantry from training to the level necessary for fourth generation warfare. Besides, we already have a Corps that excels at fighting crewed armoured vehicles so why is the infantry wasting precious training hours, manpower and money trying to be Canada's second best Armoured Corps? You would have a hard time convincing me we're not doing that in the infantry, especially when you see 9 guys dismount from 4 LAVs on an exercise or realize that real infantry PCF courses are curtailed to pay for LAV courses.

In the J-series Table of Organization and Equipment (this was late Cold War thru the early 90's), the M113 & ITV were substitute standard in armored reconnaissance until the Bradley came on-line. E Company (anti-armor) in mech infantry units was equipped with the ITVs in these units for several years until replaced with the Bradley. Does anyone know if there are still anti-armor companies in mech infantry and which series is the Army up to now?

They may retired the M901, but the Stryker Brigade Combat Team has a anti-armor company with stryker TOW 2B ATGM. So in the US Army case, I could see them bringing back or keeping the Infantry ATGM trade alive.